280 
first lies in the words “ law of nature.” What is a law of nature ? Who 
enacted that law ? What Parliament met together, and by a majority of 
votes decided there should be that law ? Why use the term “law” ? Because 
it is something written down ? But you must remember, that though 
“ written,” it is not enacted. Where is it written ? It is written in our 
own minds. From the observation of a certain set of phenomena, we find 
underlying them a certain principle ; and we write that down on the tables 
of our mind or on paper, and call it a “ law of nature.” But you must 
not argue that it is to be treated as a human law passed amongst men. It is 
not something to which a punishment is attached for violation ; — it is 
not vindicated by the Lawgiver— we speak of a law of nature indeed ; 
but there is the fallacy. A law of nature is, we must remember, not some- 
thing by which, as people would seem to say, the Deity is bound, but some- 
thing belonging to ourselves : it is a part of our own thought and of our own 
consciousness. We, having analyzed certain phenomena, find a certain princi- 
ple, as I said, underlying them, and we register it in our minds as a law. 
But we have no business to impose it on others ; it is part of ourselves. 
Therefore, when a person says, “ I do not believe a miracle takes place, 
because it is a violation of the laws of nature,” he means that a miracle is 
something which is different from his own especial observation ; he merely 
asserts the limited character of his own observations. If a person tells me 
that no testimony can be sufficient to make him believe that such a thing as 
a miracle ever happened, he is in fact saying, “ I am so convinced of the 
superiority of my intellect and of my own generalization, that no testimony 
shall prove to me there is an intellect superior to mine.” We know how that 
was answered in early times, and a hundred years ago, when Hume brought 
forward his argument against miracles as being “contrary to experience.” 
The answer was plain. What do you mean by contrary to experience ? Do 
you mean that miracles are not what people observe every day ? That is 
what we mean, — something not met with in every-day experience ; — but if you 
mean to say they are contrary to experience in this sense, that no person 
has ever seen one, you are begging the question ; you are assuming what 
you ought to prove ; you say these things did not occur, and when asked 
why, your answer is the not very convincing one, “ Because they did not.” 
The next fallacy to which I should like to call attention resides in the word 
“ Causation.” What do you mean by causation ? The term is used in two 
senses, which are apt to be confounded. In the first place, causation is taken 
to mean, and really does mean, the sequences of phenomena which, as far as 
our limited observation goes, are invariable. When we find that invariably 
in our experience one phenomenon follows another, we say the first is the cause 
of the second. That is the first mode in which the term causation is used. 
There is another sense in which it is used, and a much higher one, which is 
this — the operation of superior intellect on inferior existence. Now opponents 
of miracles confound these two together. They say, no superior existence can 
have exerted itself in a manner to which we are unaccustomed, upon 
the works of creation. Why ? Not because they deny the power of intel- 
